top of page

Current Most Read

Watching the Watchers: Is Live Facial Recognition Fit for Purpose?
India–Pakistan Conflict Escalates After Air Strikes and Retaliation
Trump’s Tariff Tantrum: How One Man’s Ego Could Wreck the Global Film Industry

The Grey Areas of Influencer Marketing

Originally Posted June 7th 2021


Woman showing beauty Products

Growing up with the internet, as I did, it’s of no surprise to me that traditional methods of marketing are failing to grab the attention of millennials and Generation Z. Many have wised up to the artifice and pretence of the advertisements that would’ve persuaded their parents and grandparents. 


Today, brands must double down on their relatability and authenticity to cater to younger consumers. With an estimated buying power of over 600 billion dollars, it’s certainly within any brand’s interests to market themselves towards millennials.


They are a generation with the highest levels of brand loyalty, but it seems increasingly difficult to earn their trust from traditional marketing. Elite Daily’s study shows that ‘only 1% of the 1300 millennials surveyed said that a compelling advertisement would make them trust a brand more,’ suggesting that, ‘millennials believe that advertising is all spin and not authentic.’


Turning to streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ for their entertainment, millennials are less likely to watch traditional advertisements, and therefore unlikely to be exposed to a brand or product that wasn’t already on their radar. Even the five-minute ad break between television shows appears to be too long to hold the attention of millennials and Generation Z, with the optimal duration for an advert likely to capture their attention being 15 seconds, perfect for scrolling through Instagram or TikTok, or even at the start of a YouTube video. Not all internet advertisements are engaging for millennials, however, with pop-up ads seemingly the worst. 96% of respondents admitted that they disliked them. Around 50% of millennials preferred YouTube advertisements and email updates, possibly because they were easier to skip and ignore.


One of the advertising strategies that appeals to millennials the most is influencer marketing—appreciated for its honest and transparent approach. To garner a significant following, influencers must develop a relationship with their audience, by creating a relatable and down-to-earth image. If a product apparently works well for the influencer, their followers are likely to believe that it will work in the same capacity for themselves also. Many influencers claim that they will only partner with a company and create sponsored content that aligns with their own personal brand and values, which only furthers their aura of authenticity.


What AI thinks Influencers Look Like


Instagram appears to be the most popular platform for influencer marketing, with more than 1 billion active users and its emphasis on photo and video content, which allows brands to visually promote their products. Similarly, aside from the skippable ads at the start of their videos, many YouTube creators earn money by taking on sponsorships with a variety of brands—either promoting their product within a section of the video or creating dedicated content to endorse it. Companies seem keen to incorporate social media influencers into their marketing strategies, as ‘two-thirds of firms plan to increase the amount spent on influencer marketing within the next year, and 80% forecast to spend at least 10% of their marketing budget on it’ (Haenlein, et al 2020). This clearly has the desired effect on millennials and Generation Z, who are more likely to purchase a product or service if it’s promoted and endorsed by an ‘admired and respected person’.


However, whilst younger people are adept at discerning the artifice of traditional advertisements, influencer marketing can be more deceitful than imagined. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces rules and guidelines to protect consumers, which includes disclosure agreements, i.e. prompting influencers to reveal their relationship with the brand. The FTC guidelines are fairly vague, so even writing ‘#Ad’ suffices as proper disclosure; however, this is often placed discreetly within the post, and therefore missed by their followers. Whilst these influencers can be fined for not properly disclosing sponsorship, because there are so many posts within the Wild West of the internet, murky advertisements can be missed. One study found that 93% of influencer sponsorships are undisclosed, and therefore violate FTC guidelines.


FTC fines are not the only possible consequences of influencer marketing. Their audiences want relatability and authenticity, which can be difficult to maintain after numerous brand deals and sponsorships. Even if the audience accepts that their favourite celebrity is shilling a product to them, there is the expectation that the company they’re partnering with should align with the influencer’s values.


Social Media Influencer

‘Understanding influencer marketing: The role of congruence between influencers, products and consumers’ gives the example of an Instagram influencer who partnered with Volvo to promote a toxic-free car cleaner. Her followers resented this endorsement, as it appeared forced and performative; this eco-friendly, sustainable message was incongruous to her usual jet-setting, travel-related content. Not only did this partnership backfire, wasting money for Volvo, the consequences may have also extended to a loss of followers for the influencer because she’d broken their trust.


Influencer marketing is not as straightforward as it may seem. Something as artificial as product marketing must still be perceived as authentic and genuine. Once an influencer grows and accepts more sponsorships, it’s likely that their followers will realise that they’ve become simply a target demographic. The ‘I’m just like you’ mentality could come crashing down. Whether this happens before the FTC cracks down on undisclosed partnerships remains to be seen.

Watching the Watchers: Is Live Facial Recognition Fit for Purpose?

Watching the Watchers: Is Live Facial Recognition Fit for Purpose?

8 May 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

In an age of rapid technological advancement, surveillance is no longer a passive act. Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology has moved from science fiction into the heart of modern policing and commercial security systems. Able to scan faces in real time and match them to watchlists within seconds, it promises efficiency, safety, and even crime prevention. But with these promises come serious questions about legality, accuracy, ethics, and trust.


Futuristic officer with glowing green eyes and circuit-patterned uniform in a neon-lit corridor, exuding a cool, technological vibe.

As this technology continues to spread across public streets and private retail spaces alike, we must ask: is LFR ready for widespread use, or is it running ahead of the safeguards designed to protect our rights?


What is Live Facial Recognition?

Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is a biometric surveillance tool that uses real-time video feeds to detect and identify faces. Unlike static facial recognition, which analyses images after an event has occurred, LFR operates live. Cameras scan crowds, extract facial features, and compare them to a database of preloaded images. If the system detects a potential match, it alerts a human operator to intervene or investigate.


LFR is being trialled and used by several police forces in the UK, including the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. Retailers, stadiums, and event organisers are also deploying the technology in an attempt to identify shoplifters or detect banned individuals before trouble starts.


A woman's face on a monitor with blue facial recognition lines, surrounded by software interface text, creates a tech-focused atmosphere.

How Does It Work? A Closer Look

LFR involves several distinct technical steps. At its core, it is powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms trained on vast datasets of facial images. The process typically unfolds as follows:


Face Detection

First, the system identifies a face within a video frame. This step uses computer vision models to detect facial structures such as the eyes, nose, and jawline. This is not identification yet; it is simply recognising that a face is present.


Alignment and Normalisation

Once detected, the system adjusts the face to account for differences in head tilt, lighting, or distance. This is known as normalisation. The aim is to ensure that all faces are processed in a similar format so that they can be compared reliably.


Feature Extraction

The system then uses a deep learning model, often a convolutional neural network, to extract features from the face. These are translated into a biometric template, a mathematical vector that represents the unique aspects of that person’s face.


Matching

This template is then compared against a watchlist. The system calculates a similarity score between the live face and each entry in the database. If the score passes a predefined threshold, the system flags it as a match. A human operator is usually involved at this stage to confirm or reject the result.

This entire process happens in seconds, enabling real-time surveillance across public or private spaces.


The Case For LFR

Proponents argue that LFR is a valuable tool for modern policing. It can identify wanted criminals, locate missing persons, and even prevent terrorist acts before they happen. In retail settings, it promises to reduce shoplifting and protect staff from repeat offenders. Unlike traditional methods, it allows for rapid identification without the need for physical interaction or delays.

The technology also allows for more efficient use of resources. Officers can be directed to individuals flagged by the system, rather than relying solely on observation or tip-offs. In theory, this reduces the burden on police and enhances public safety.

The Case Against LFR

Despite its promise, LFR is far from perfect. One of the main concerns is accuracy. Studies have shown that LFR systems are more likely to produce false positives for people with darker skin tones and for women. These errors are not trivial. A mistaken identity can result in an innocent person being stopped, searched, or even arrested.


There is also the issue of bias in training data. If an algorithm has been trained primarily on certain demographics, it will perform less effectively on others. In real-world conditions, such as low lighting or crowd movement, these problems can become even more pronounced.


Beyond technical flaws, legal and ethical questions loom large. In the United Kingdom, there is currently no specific law governing the use of LFR. Its deployment relies on a complex mesh of data protection laws, human rights principles, and operational guidance. Critics argue that this legal uncertainty leaves too much room for misuse.


A 2020 Court of Appeal ruling found South Wales Police’s use of LFR to be unlawful, citing insufficient safeguards, inadequate impact assessments, and the risk of discriminatory practices. The ruling did not ban the technology outright but signalled that current uses are walking a legal tightrope.


Profile of a woman with glowing blue cybernetic lines on her face, set against a blurred background. Futuristic and serene mood.

Potential Misuse and the Chilling Effect

One of the most troubling aspects of LFR is its capacity for mass surveillance. By scanning every face in a crowd, it treats everyone as a potential suspect. This blanket approach has been described as disproportionate and invasive by privacy groups such as Big Brother Watch and Liberty.


There is also the risk of function creep. A system introduced to identify serious offenders could, over time, be expanded to monitor protests, track political activists, or even control access to public spaces based on social or behavioural metrics.


Furthermore, the use of LFR by private companies raises concerns about data ownership and accountability. Retailers may share watchlists across multiple sites or even with law enforcement, all without the consent or knowledge of the individuals being scanned. This could lead to people being unfairly banned, blacklisted, or targeted, based on secretive and unchallengeable criteria.


Is It Fit for Purpose?

At present, the evidence suggests that Live Facial Recognition technology is not ready for widespread deployment. While it offers considerable potential, its use is outpacing the development of ethical, legal, and technical safeguards. In its current state, LFR is more likely to erode public trust than to enhance security.


Without robust legislation, transparent oversight, and significant improvements in accuracy and fairness, LFR risks doing more harm than good. Surveillance should not come at the cost of civil liberties or human dignity. As with all powerful technologies, its benefits must be balanced against the risks, and right now, that balance appears off.



LFR is a powerful tool with a fragile foundation. Its strengths lie in speed and scale, but its weaknesses—bias, error, and lack of transparency—cast a long shadow. Until these flaws are addressed, caution must guide its use.


In the race to embrace smart surveillance, we must not forget the human rights and democratic values that underpin our society. Watching the watchers may be just as important as watching the streets.


Images provided by Leonardo AI

bottom of page